On Thu, Apr 6, 2023 at 5:17 AM tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com> wrote:
> From: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-i...@htt-consult.com> > Sent: 05 April 2023 18:58 > > The origin draft only was discussing SCHC as an IP Protocol Number. > > At IETF115, the attendees agreed that the draft needs to be expanded to > also SCHC as an Ethertype and as a UDP Port Number. > > Thus the old draft name no longer reflects the new content. > > <tp> > A very common state of affairs in the IETF. If the name changed for every > semantic change then some I-D would go through a large number of names > before making it to RFC which would make it hard for anyone to find out > what has happened. I recall an AD losing track of what had been proposed > because they did not realise that there had been a name change. > > The I-D title matters, that is there for the long haul. > The I-D file name is a temporary identifier that should follow the > requirements for an identifier, a key one of which is stability and a key > one which is not is for the name to be updated if some part of the > semantics change. And another key one is being subject to maximum of 55 characters I am happy to see protocol number as encompassing an Ethertype protocol > number, a media type protocol number, an interface protocol number and so > on so see no need to change. > > Wholeheartedly agree. We should not have to change the I-D file name. Behcet > </rant> > > Tom Petch > > p.s. I could tell you about a scientific (in)discipline where a small > group feed their egos by changing identifiers every few years thereby > rendering the literature, where a name could appear a million times, hard > to use for those of us who have been around for a while and ever more > difficult to access for students in future (which is how to feed an ego) > but I will leave that for another day. > > > There is a > mechanism when you submit a draft to link it to a prior draft so the > draft history is properly maintained (it does not support linking to > multiple prior drafts or splitting an old draft into multiple, for that > you have to ask for human help). > > So the new draft name will reflect the new draft content. > > I just don't have enough time to get content into the new draft prior to > Passover Holiday start. I hope to get it done during the middle days, > say Sunday. Stay tuned. Pascal Thubert is helping me with the new > content. Particularly the specific content needed to liason with IEEE > 802 on the Ethertype. > > Bob > > On 4/5/23 11:49, tom petch wrote: > > From: Int-area <int-area-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Robert > Moskowitz <rgm-i...@htt-consult.com> > > Sent: 05 April 2023 12:22 > > > > I am in the process of reving draft > > > > draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number > > > > and adding support for schc as an ethertype and tcp/udp port number as I > > said I would do back in Nov. Sigh. > > > > So what to name the new draft? > > > > <tp> > > If you are producing a new version of > draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-00 then I would call it > draft-ietf-intarea-schc-ip-protocol-number-01. I do not see any other > logical choice. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-intarea-schc-protocol-numbers > > > > ?? > > > > Alternatives? > > > > Thanks and now back to my writing as I really want to get an update out > > today before Holidays... > > > > Bob > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Int-area mailing list > > Int-area@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > > > _______________________________________________ > Int-area mailing list > Int-area@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
